Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Local Court of Solomon Islands

Vaena v Faamae [2014] SBLC 3; Land Case 03 of 2013 (14 May 2014)

IN THE GUADALCANAL LOCAL COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT,
SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE MATTER OF: KOKU/HACHOHA LAND
LC CASE NO: 03/2013

BETWEEN:

DASTY VAENA REPRESENTING SABAHA TRIBE
PLAINTIFF

AND:

MATILDA FA'AMAE REPRESENTING ISUNA KOMU TRIBE
DEFENDANT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: KOKU LAND
LC CASE NO: 2/2011 CONSOLIDATED

BETWEEN:

CHIEF FRANK NOKIA & PETER SUA REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIA TRIBE
PLAINTIFFS

AND:

ROBERT PEPEO REPRESENTING CHACHA TRIBE AND DASTY VAENA & RAYSON RA'A REPRESENTING SABAHA TRIBE
DEFENDANT

HELD AT THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
ON 23RD, 25TH, 28TH APRIL AND 1ST MAY 2014

DATE OF RULING:14TH MAY 2014

RULING

Introduction:

This is a ruling on preliminary issues concerning Koku land.The dispute was initially brought before the chiefson separate occasions first in 2006 with parties involved are Chief Frank Nokia and Peter Sua representing Varia Tribe against Robert Pepeo representing Chacha Tribe, DastyVaena and RaysonRa'a representing Sabaha Tribe. The decision of the chiefs then was never pronounced till present. Another dispute that went before the chiefs concerning the same land was on 4th December 2012 and involved Matilda Fa'amae representing IsunaKomu tribe against DastyVaena of the Sabaha Tribe of which its decision was in favor of IsunaKomu tribe as true owner in custom of the Koku land.DastyVaeana who was then one of the defendants in the chief hearing lodged and filed a dispute case to the Guadalcanal Local Court on 5 June 2013 subject of this current proceeding. The court deemed important to consolidate the two separate cases since issue in contention is about a dispute concerning the same land (Koku).

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Local Court has jurisdiction to hear case in a trial proceeding and determine customary ownership of Koku land.
   
2. Whether the chief hearing on both occasions in 2006 and 2012 exhaust all traditional means of solving a dispute as and with accordance to Section 12 (1) paragraphs a and b of the Local Court Amendment Act (Cap.19) 1985.
   

Facts:

1. Claim of customary ownership of Koku land
   
2. All parties appeared before the Local Court each had claim over the customary ownership of Koku.
   
3. DastyVaena representing Sabaha Tribe filed dispute to the Guadalcanal Local Court against Matilda Fa'amae representing the IsunaKomu tribe subject of a chief decision made in 2012.
   
4. Chief Frank Nokiaand Peter Sua representing the Varia Tribe filed case against DastyVaena and RaysonRa'a representing the Sabaha Tribe subject of a non-delivery of a chief decision over the Koku/Hachoha land held in 2006.
   
5. Matilda Fa'amae's submission for dismissal of proceeding on the Koku land dispute caseindicating that the Local Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain or hear the case.
   

Finding (s)

In court parties informed the presiding panel about the dispute. We find it simple to deal with the findings on party by party statements produced before us.

As such, we will begin by stating the first plaintiff's statement produced to the panel. The statements derived were verbal statements as parties were asked about their knowledge as to the origins of the dispute since the Local Court found there are discrepancies as to the appearance of documents on files.

The court found through asking and answering questions that in 2006 a dispute over the koku land went before the Vatumauri Council of chiefs where Chief Frank Nokia and Peter Sua representing the Variatribe took dispute against Robert Pepeo and Dick Douglas representing Chacha tribe, DastyVaena and RaysonRa'a representing Sabaha tribe and Gu'u and Pikinini representing the Salasivo tribe all from Central Guadalcanal,decision of that particular chief hearing was never pronounced.

Chief Frank Nokia and Peter Sua (Varia Tribe)

Statements presented in court

Mr. Peter Sua speaking on behalf of Chief Frank Nokia informed court on how they also become affected over the land in dispute Koku. They told court that they went before the chief'shearing way back in 2006 with the Chacha, Sabahaand Salasivo tribes. The dispute then was erupted due to an acquisition process took place in those times and subsequently the need for proper identification of tribes arises as issue of royalty payments affected tribes within the Gold Ridge area. Peter Sua also tendered copies of correspondence letters written to the Land Acquisition Officer then. Intention of those letters was to inform the LA/Officerof the importance of identifying appropriate land owners first before attempting to cause an acquisition process as that is fundamental to allow future processes undisrupted. The acquisition process then also included Ravua land however, in these two applications dispute settlement in the chiefs hearing did not include Ravua as found in the relevant documents available before the court.

Correspondence letters then were also written to the Vatumauri chiefs enquiring about the position of the chiefs' decision and on the possibility of delivering the decision of the hearing in accordance with the custom of Guadalcanal, particularly within the locality of where the dispute arises. Obviously the chiefs have not delivered the decision hence leads the Varia tribe's representatives to file case to the Local Court with the thinking that all traditional means of solving a dispute have been exhausted.

DastyVaena and RaysonRa'a (Sabaha tribe)

Statements presented in court

DastyVaena and RaysonRa'a both represented the Sabaha Tribe. Mr. Vaena leading spokesperson informed court about the origin of the dispute. They claimed that Koku land is originally belonging to their tribe.

DastyVaena informed court that the dispute was triggered by monetary benefits of the land, which the Government has allocated for relocation purpose. According to record on file as well his statement in court,Dasty was a party in both two chief hearings conducted in 2006 and in 2012. In 2006 he and his tribe appeared as defendant and in 2012 again appeared as defendant. Obviously the chief hearing of 2006 had no decision due to the non-attendance of the other tribes whom the Varia tribe had taken dispute against. Along with other tribes in 2012 Dasty as representative of Sabaha tribe including other tribes went before the chiefs at Tetere as defendant in the chief hearing of which its decision was awarded to IsunaKomu tribe represented by Matilda Fa'amae.

Mr. Vaena in his statement also informed court that during the hearing in 2012 a person named Luke Tome (mistakenly referred to as lawyer) who is known to be advising Matilda Fa'amaeappeared before the chiefs, advising the chiefs on procedures and the type of evidences the chiefs should hear and what tribes should be eligible to be part of the dispute settlement in 2012 indicating that parties previously went before the chiefs in 2006 should not involve in the 2012 dispute. Mr. Vaenahaving aggrieved of the decision of the 2012 hearing filed case to the local court.

Dasty also informed court that he was the one who gave money to Matilda Fa'amae for recognition ofIsunaKomu tribe as a tribe amongst appropriate tribes who should receive royalty payments. Matilda having received part of her tribe's share in turn organized the chief hearing and funded the chiefs. Dasty further inform court that Matilda was not the one who spoke on behalf of the IsunaKomu tribe it was a Lily Sika who did.

Matilda Fa'amae (IsunaKomu tribe) statement presented in Court

Matilda Fa'amae representing IsunaKomu tribe informed court that she took dispute to the chiefs in 2012. The intentions of taking the dispute to the chiefs then was for the chiefs to properly identify customary ownership of Koku land in custom since more than one tribe claimed ownership. She told court that she was the one who organized the chief hearing and funding for the hearing was allocated by her alone.The chiefs sat at Tetere to hear dispute after which they made their decision.

Matilda also tendered to court documents relating to a High Court proceeding in relation to an application for joinder. Also a hearing into exparteorders relating to monetary claim was heard in the High Court and the High Court imposes an interim order to restrain other parties from receiving further payments.

Including documents tendered to court was a sworn statement of Mrs. Lily Sika relating to the application for joint party with Matilda Fa'amae.

Matilda Fa'amae also tender submission to court for dismissal of Local Court proceeding which is also subject of this ruling and this court will make a ruling in relation to the processes involved in the start of dispute that went before the chiefs twice involving totally different parties.

Rule/Law apply

Section 12 (1) b of the Local Court Amendment Act (Cap.19) 1985 is applicable in this case.

Analysis

We see that the requirement of Section 12 (1) b of the Act is the particular requirement that was not met by the chiefs in the hearing even though the hearing may be seen that the parties had referred dispute to the chiefs. We quote Section 12 (1) b of the Act, Section 12 (1) b says and the court quote "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law, no local court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any customaryland dispute unless it is satisfied that-all traditional means of solving the dispute have been exhausted." End of quote.

The chief hearing in 2006 involved Varia tribe and the Sabaha tribe and the court understand that the process was not completed by the chiefs hence part b of Section 12 (1) of the Act comes to question this is to say whether all traditional means of solving dispute have been exhausted. Given non-compliance of such requirement met by the chiefs it does not allow this court exercise the authority to hear evidences in custom and to cause determination over the customary ownership of the land.

In the 2012 chief hearing also subject of this proceeding we see that requirement of Section 12 (1) part b of the Local Court Act was not complied with by the chiefs. Matilda Fa'amae in her statement when asked by the court about composition of chiefs and whether all parties to the hearing made joint funding and have agreed with the composition of chiefs, she said that she alone funded the chief hearing. This to us signified that there is likelihood of favoritism and would lead to influence the chiefs' decision. What this court deem proper when given a situation of funding chiefs hearing, all parties to the hearing must cause a joint funding, not only one party. We say this simply because of the fact that money influences the chiefs in making of a just and fair decision reflective of the true customary practices of Guadalcanal.

What has transpired then was a sad thing to have happened and destroys the integrity of the chiefs as they were the very people to assist tribes to solve their problems. One obvious mistake chiefs (happens everywhere) did not realize was that their roles are to settle land disputes they have misunderstand that and acted like courts. This is the reason this court strongly emphasize importance of Section 12(1) part b of the Local Court Amendment Act (Cap.19) 1985 that talks about all traditional means of solving a dispute have been exhausted, we see that that particular provision of the Act was not done by the chiefs in both of the two hearings.

We see that Section 13 (e) of the Local Court Act is the appropriate provision of the Act in making our orders as we deem fit to give directions to the chiefs and parties involved in this case.

Conclusion:

In closing this case we make the following orders;

Orders:

1. The chiefs' decision made on 4th December 2012 at Tetere is hereby quashed.
   
2. The applications to this court from both Mr. Frank Nokia in relation to the 2006 chief hearing and DastyVaena in relation to the 2012 chief hearing are hereby quashed.
   
3. Case is remitted to a newly constituted panel ofMalango and Bahomea Council of chiefs for a fresh settlement.
   
4. The new chiefs hearing to be convened within three months from date orders made.
   
5. Funding for the chiefs to be borne by all parties.
   
6. Matilda Fa'amae and Lily Sika and the IsunaKomu tribal members to get into consent and decide on whom to be the leading person in any matters arising concerning the tribe.
   
7. No costs
   

R/A to GCLAC is three months from today's date

Basil Savani ----------------------------- President
Charles Manakako ----------------------------- Member
Daniel Sade ----------------------------- Member
Peter Suibasia ----------------------------- Member
Edward Kekea ----------------------------- Member
Timothy Ngele ----------------------------- Clerk

Dated this 14th day of May 2014
At the Central Magistrates' Court
Honiara

THE LOCAL COURT